Hersh: Bush admin planning ‘surgical’ strikes in Iran

October 1, 2007

The president is connecting Iran to attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. Cheney’s rhetoric is becoming more strident. Senate Republicans and a few too many Dems have labeled Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as “terrorists.” Freedom’s Watch is considering a national advertising campaign focused on Iran, comparing Ahmadinejad to Hitler, and hoping to convince Americans that Iran will try to destroy the United States and Israel.

The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh explains that this isn’t an accident. If his sources are right, plans for a military confrontation with Iran are moving forward apace.

This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism. […]

During a secure videoconference that took place early this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British “were on board.” […]

At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”

Apparently, Cheney is, once again, calling the shots, and he has a plan. This isn’t “Regime Change 2007” — there wouldn’t be another occupation — but rather a fast “in and out” mission. What could possibly go wrong? Swoop in, drop a few bombs, be home in time for dinner.

It’s not as if these guys have rushed into military confrontations in the Middle East based on ridiculously optimistic military scenarios and dubious intelligence before, right?

The revised bombing plan for a possible attack, with its tightened focus on counterterrorism, is gathering support among generals and admirals in the Pentagon. The strategy calls for the use of sea-launched cruise missiles and more precisely targeted ground attacks and bombing strikes, including plans to destroy the most important Revolutionary Guard training camps, supply depots, and command and control facilities.

“Cheney’s option is now for a fast in and out — for surgical strikes,” the former senior American intelligence official told me. The Joint Chiefs have turned to the Navy, he said, which had been chafing over its role in the Air Force-dominated air war in Iraq. “The Navy’s planes, ships, and cruise missiles are in place in the Gulf and operating daily. They’ve got everything they need — even AWACS are in place and the targets in Iran have been programmed. The Navy is flying FA-18 missions every day in the Gulf.” There are also plans to hit Iran’s anti-aircraft surface-to-air missile sites. “We’ve got to get a path in and a path out,” the former official said.

A Pentagon consultant on counterterrorism told me that, if the bombing campaign took place, it would be accompanied by a series of what he called “short, sharp incursions” by American Special Forces units into suspected Iranian training sites. He said, “Cheney is devoted to this, no question.”

What happens next? Hersh was on CNN yesterday, explaining that administration officials will argue that this isn’t about invading another Middle Eastern country and overthrowing a rival government; this is about a counter-terrorism strike to protect Americans.

“You can also sell counter-terror, it’s much more logical. You can say to the American people, we’re only hitting these people that are trying to kill our boys and the coalition forces and so that seems to be more sensible, The White House thinks they can actually pitch this, this would actually work.”

Digby summarizes the big picture:

It would seem that Cheney and the Big Money Boyz have decided that we can’t take any chances on a premature withdrawal from the middle east. And that takes precedence over the possibility of things hurtling out of control. Or perhaps, for inscrutable reasons, they want thing to hurtle out of control. Maybe they are just like so many rich, short-term thinkers who apparently don’t love their children or their country or they would care more about the future. (History? We’ll all be dead.) Maybe they’re just insane. Whatever the case, hitting Iran seems to be more likely than it has been up to now and the political establishment seems to be either on board or paralyzed.

Stay tuned.

hitting Iran seems to be more likely than it has been up to now and the political establishment seems to be either on board or paralyzed.

Including enough Democrats “on board” to give Bush/Cheney’s plan a majority authorization, right?

  • A strike on Iran is illegal and unconstitutional without a declaration of war from Congress (the same problem with the U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq).

    The United States Congress should review the Constitution and do their jobs. That would include impeachment to prevent an impending disaster and for capital crimes and treason committed by the Bush Cabal.

    But I keep forgetting; we don’t live in a Constitutional Republic. We live in the first American Dictatorship.

  • One hope is that the leading Dems confront Cheney & (adopted) Son letting them know that if this happens, they will be handed over to the international community & prosecuted for war crimes.

  • Surgical strikes…why does this make me think that it’s our throats the scalpel will be slashing?

  • Iran spiralling out of control might be the level of impetus we need to forever rid ourselves of the GOP zombie, and shatter the DC bubble.

    When you look at the inertia of this broken system, it’s terrifying to think of what would have happened if Bush hadn’t failed so obviously. Bush unwittingly pulled back the curtain just shy of a complete dismantling of the Republic. Without reality out there, so starkly making a mockery of all that we read and hear, I doubt we could have saved our forefathers’ vision. As Kyl-Leiberman has shown, not even a complete meltdown can derail this train.

    I loooove the bomb.

  • So we can’t leave Iraq because “the terrorists will follow us home.” It looks to me like they’re already here — in the White House. These people think just like al Qaeda does.

  • Every “t” crossed and every “i” dotted regarding “surgical strikes” and “short, sharp incursions”, (now there’s a new catchphrase waiting to fall into the lexicon), and no mention of the weeks following those visionary actions.

    The Iranians will be so cowed by our massive display of power that they will see the light and calmly lie down while ignoring the death and destruction bestowed upon them by the Great Satan?

    The Iranians will remind themselves that we don’t have the manpower to occupy their country after we have attacked them and they will decide to stay within their borders and wait for further instructions from America?

    The Iranians will decide that the best path to avoiding any more conflict is to make friends with Israel and ask American and British Oil companies what accommodations they can make which would most please those companies?

    The answer to all, of course, is Yes! The same thinking that has lead up to the execution of Surgical Strikes and Short, Sharp Incursions has also got us covered on the aftermath of those actions. And that means we have nothing to worry about.

  • Destabilizing Iran is a dandy way for our current president to prevent his successor from
    pulling US troops out of Iraq.

    But, seriously, the strikes must be at least several months in the future, since the
    administration hasn’t prepared public opinion by connecting Iran with 9/11 and al-Qaida.

    Maybe we should consult our allies in Iraq about their experience starting a war with Iran.

  • Buzzmon

    One hope is that the leading Dems confront Cheney & (adopted) Son letting them know that if this happens, they will be handed over to the international community & prosecuted for war crimes.

    That won’t happen. The Bush/Cheney cabal covered their asses long ago, back in 2002, knowing they were going to commit crimes under international law:

    U.S.: ‘Hague Invasion Act’ Becomes Law

    (New York, August 3, 2002) U.S. President George Bush today signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which is intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the “Hague invasion clause,” has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands.

    In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the United States obtains immunity from prosecution. At the same time, these provisions can be waived by the president on “national interest” grounds.

    “The states that have ratified this treaty are trying to strengthen the rule of law,” said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. “The Bush administration is trying to punish them for that.”

    Dicker pointed out that many of the ICC’s biggest supporters are fragile democracies and countries emerging from human rights crises, such as Sierra Leone, Argentina and Fiji.

    The law is part of a multi-pronged U.S. effort against the International Criminal Court. On May 6, in an unprecedented move, the Bush administration announced it was “renouncing” U.S. signature on the treaty. In June, the administration vetoed continuation of the U.N. peacekeeping force in Bosnia in an effort to obtain permanent immunity for U.N. peacekeepers. In July, U.S. officials launched a campaign around the world to obtain bilateral agreements that would grant immunity for Americans from the court’s authority. Yesterday, Washington announced that it obtained such an agreement from Romania.

    However, another provision of the bill allows the United States to assist international efforts to bring to justice those accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity – including efforts by the ICC.

    “The administration never misses an opportunity to gratuitously antagonize its allies on the ICC,” said Dicker. “But it’s also true that the new law has more loopholes than a block of Swiss cheese.”

    Dicker said the law gives the administration discretion to override ASPA’s noxious effects on a case-by-case basis. Washington may try to use this to strong-arm additional concessions from the states that support the court, but Dicker urged states supporting the ICC “not to fall into the U.S. trap: the law does not require any punitive measures.”

    Human Rights Watch believes the International Criminal Court has the potential to be the most important human rights institution created in 50 years, and urged regional groups of states, such as the European Union, to condemn the new law and resist Washington’s attempts to obtain bilateral exemption arrangements.

    The law formed part of the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States.

  • If Bush launches an attack on Iran, wouldn’t that be an impeachable offense?

    As much as I would like to see these guys leave office by any means necessary, I haven’t been screaming for impeachment. It’s for purely pragmatic reasons – it ain’t gonna happen with 49 Republicans plus Lieberman in the Senate.

    Would an attack on Iran be enough to flip seventeen Republicans? Probably not. They’re Republicans, remember?

  • Seymour’s been pretty good at getting the scoop. Gonna be ugly if they go through with this.

  • Pingback: 1913 Intel - Monitoring Strategic and Geopolitical Developments » Blog Archive » US Weighs Strikes Against Iran As Iraq Fears New Conflict

  • I think Cheney is gravely mistaken about the “safety” of an In/Out attack on Iran. From all accounts Iran has the capability of a long-range missile attack on the US to retaliate against illegal strikes against them, quite unlike Iraq. Check out Iran’s weapons capabilities — there’s a lot online about them. We also don’t know what their allies have provided them in weaponry. The enthusiastically-touted US missile defense system was unable to destroy all the lobbed missiles in a test last week. Was it 6 out of 10? There’s probably HEAVY pressure to get the missile defenses even more accurate. Wonder what the Pentagon will think is accurate enough?

    For sure, US troops in Iraq will be sitting ducks and suffer terrible casualties since they’re in easy striking distance of Iran. The “bipartisan” legislature may be biting off more than Americans can chew if it authorizes the Bush/Cheney plan.

  • Pardon me for imagining the scenario, but if terrorists detonated car bombs at the gates to military bases around the US, those might also be considered “surgical strikes.”

    By which I mean, US warplanes dropping bombs on Iran for no good reason might fairly be considered a kind of terrorism.

  • anney said:

    “For sure, US troops in Iraq will be sitting ducks and suffer terrible casualties since they’re in easy striking distance of Iran.”

    And if the Iranians want to play dirty like that then we nuke ’em. Part of the aftermath planning has been to determine which way the wind will be blowing to avoid misplaced fallout.

  • burro: Do you expect Iran to just smile and take it? What would you do if you were in their shoes and the US started dropping bombs on you?

    “Nuke ’em?” The cherry on the top of the Bush legacy.

  • Another example of the lack of forethought displayed by our fearless leader and his cronies. Shitting the bed is just the least of his accomplishments.

  • Jeez, Hersh says this (empahsis added):

    I was repeatedly cautioned, in interviews, that the President has yet to issue the “execute order” that would be required for a military operation inside Iran, and such an order may never be issued. But there has been a significant increase in the tempo of attack planning. In mid-August, senior officials told reporters that the Administration intended to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization. And two former senior officials of the C.I.A. told me that, by late summer, the agency had increased the size and the authority of the Iranian Operations Group. (A spokesman for the agency said, “The C.I.A. does not, as a rule, publicly discuss the relative size of its operational components.”)

    “They’re moving everybody to the Iran desk,” one recently retired C.I.A. official said. “They’re dragging in a lot of analysts and ramping up everything. It’s just like the fall of 2002”—the months before the invasion of Iraq, when the Iraqi Operations Group became the most important in the agency. He added, “The guys now running the Iranian program have limited direct experience with Iran. In the event of an attack, how will the Iranians react? They will react, and the Administration has not thought it all the way through.”

    That theme was echoed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national-security adviser, who said that he had heard discussions of the White House’s more limited bombing plans for Iran. Brzezinski said that Iran would likely react to an American attack “by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years.”

    So, it’s another lunatic move by the Bush/Cheney cabal, with nary a clue about the consequences.

  • The key to fighting this is to confront the rationale for the attacking Iran. Superficially, justifying an attack base on a “protect the troops” argument will garner some support from the political center. It will also be hard to defend against because the rightwing noise machine will smear those that oppose the attack as not wanting to protect our boys in uniform. What we must begin immediately to undermine the rationale. Iran is not the primary problem in Iraq, no more so, than Al Qeada in Iraq is the primary problem. This is all propaganda. Here is a couple of key ‘graphs from the Hersh article.

    The difficulty of determining who is responsible for the chaos in Iraq can be seen in Basra, in the Shiite south, where British forces had earlier presided over a relatively secure area. Over the course of this year, however, the region became increasingly ungovernable, and by fall the British had retreated to fixed bases. A European official who has access to current intelligence told me that “there is a firm belief inside the American and U.K. intelligence community that Iran is supporting many of the groups in southern Iraq that are responsible for the deaths of British and American soldiers. Weapons and money are getting in from Iran. They have been able to penetrate many groups”—primarily the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias.

    A June, 2007, report by the International Crisis Group found, however, that Basra’s renewed instability was mainly the result of “the systematic abuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighborhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias.” The report added that leading Iraqi politicians and officials “routinely invoke the threat of outside interference”—from bordering Iran—“to justify their behavior or evade responsibility for their failures.”

    We must do a better job of counter the fundamental assumptions being used to market this war than we did with the Iraq war.

  • I’m all in favor of this move. Bravo!

    The history books can’t say Bush and company learned absolutely NOTHING from Vietnam unless the equivalent bombing of Cambodia is attempted.

    Let’s complete the nearly airtight analogy, shall we?

    Cripes, is there no end to their thirst for ignominy?

  • I’ve read several articles like this one:

    Why Iranians like America (Washington Post)

    …most Iranians seem to be genuinely pro-American. (And, incidentally, also much less hysterically anti-Israel than anyone else in the Islamic Middle East outside of Iraqi Kurdistan.)

    I suspect this is true, in part, for the same reasons that eastern Europeans–by contrast to western Europeans or Greeks–have tended to be relatively pro-American since at least the 1970s. Most Iranians don’t like the regime that’s ruling them, they would like to live in a more “normal” country, and for many the US symbolizes popular hopes for achieving a more open, democratic, and prosperous society. (Even George W. Bush, who certainly doesn’t seem to be popular in Iran the way that–like it or not–Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were genuinely popular in eastern Europe in the 1980s, still doesn’t seem to inspire the kind of visceral hatred among Iranians that he does among western Europeans, Arabs, and others.)

    Bush/Cheney seem determined to give us an experience somewhat like that of clubbing baby seals to death…

  • Surgical strikes my ass. Cheney does not care how many people he gets killed. “It’s such a small sacrifice”. They act like there are only enemy soldiers everywhere they want to strike. This will be the mass murder of thousands of innocent Iranians just like in Iraq. How can there be any doubt that Cheney’s group is insane? Another preemptive war, mass murder of thousands of men, women, and children. They mention not a single word about the aftermath because they believe we will wipe them out. This is a country with the only democratically elected government in the region and we want to attack them? for supplying weapons…we’ve been conducting covert terrorists activities inside Iran’s borders for years. Why aren’t we attacking Saudi Arabia also? Or Pakistan for harboring our enemy? THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT CHENEY AND COMPANY ARE INSANE!
    The congress, rather than doing what is necessary to stop Bush/Cheney by cutting the funding or impeaching them, just stands there frozen, unwilling to stop them. They cannot later say “if only we knew then etc.” because they do know and so far they will be complicit in the mass murder of Iranians, and guaranteed war for our children’s children. Are we all living in fear of this President that we will allow him to continue to destroy our country. This should be a war on all things republican and those dems acting republican. How does anyone not see this as insanity?

  • First, even people in Iran who don’t like Ahmadicantspellhisname (and there are a lot of them) were pissed off by the way he was treated in the US. 2. We might be able to hit only those targets that house IRG etc and not homes and hospitals but people will still object to bombs falling on them. 3. The Straits of Hormuz. Need I elablorate? 4. The very long border between Iran and Iraq. Need I elaborate? 5. Many people in the ME are already convinced that the US invasion of Iraq was nothing more than Step One in an attempt to clear them out and colonize the entire region. Need I elaborate?

    Van Riper must be banging his head against a wall right now.

    Now maybe this mAdministration is making noises about Iran in order to brow beat some consession out of Congress (“We promise not to bomb Iran if you give us 50 zillion dollars for Iraq.”) but my suggestion to you all is this: Find an alternate means of transportation because oil might get a lot more expensive, real soon.

    That won’t happen. The Bush/Cheney cabal covered their asses long ago, back in 2002, knowing they were going to commit crimes under international law:

    All smoke and marsh gas. If the US did invade the Hague the nations of the world would line up to fuck us over. In addition, this law still requires someone to authorize Operation Rambo. BushCo, with their usual inability to plan beyond the next meal didn’t expect this fiasco to last the entire time they were in power. The law was meant to scare other nation’s into handing soldiers over after Iraq became a beacon of Democracy, oil and ponies which was supposed to occur while he was still in office to use the threat. Not going to happen after 2009 and he needs to worry about someone handing his arse over.

  • Don’t you usually stage some incident before the give these kinds of mission credibility?

    Like, oh I don’t know, claim that Iranian PT boats attacked US destroyers in the Gulf?

    Or dress up some Iraqi prisoners in Iranian Revoluntionary Guard uniforms, then have them shot “attempting” to overrun an Iraqi radio station to broadcast anti-Iraqi messages to the Shia population?

    And I have the perfect name for the bombing campaign:
    Operation Rolling Thunder II

  • So when Iraq deploys its potent anti-ship missile defense system and wounds or sinks an aircraft carrier or other large vessel as a countermeasure to a bombing campaign does Bush/ Cheney gets its Gulf of Tonkin or “Remember the Maine” moment? What a great way to escalate a war.

    And if Iran fails to retaliate and fall for the obvious incitement to war, then Cheney gets to win with a sucker punch. What a great win-win scenario, except for when the Arab world says to hell with America and starts selling all its oil to China and India. Then what a quandary we’ll be in.

  • The highjackers of 911 were from Saudi Arabia. Over HALF of ALL insurgents in Iraq today killing Americans are from Saudi Arabia. There are ZERO Iranian soldiers in Iraq. Conclusion…..let’s now kill as many Iranians as is illegally allowed by law and never ask even a single question of Saudi Arabia. The Bush family has taken over $2 Billion in personal private loans from the Saudi Royals. When does GWBush go to prison for the drug deals he and his brother Jeb were arrested for in 1985 at the Miami Intl Airport for cocaine sales and distribution?! About the same time we start bombing Saudi Arabia I presume.

  • What are they going to bomb? Plumbing factories in Tehran?

    …Because that’s literally how simple the parts are that they’re claiming are coming from Iran.

  • Yet another for ISRAEL.

    Its time to pull the rug out from under the AIPAC and MOSSAD agents running US foreign policy.

    Israel is NOT an ally of the US.

    POLLARD, USS Liberty, 911…do you need more?

  • The nuclear disaster at Chernobyl was entirely preventable, and one might argue that those who were at fault were begging for something to go wrong. The reactor that exploded out of control was shut down for maintenance at the time of the accident, and the plant’s operators were experimenting with a plan to recover waste heat from a slumbering reactor, to generate even more power that would otherwise be lost.

    In order to do this, they had systematically bypassed all the safeties and cutouts, and were trying to balance something as delicate and volatile as the nuclear chain reaction using hand control.

    This reminds me of that.

  • Dear Hillary,

    Thanks for enabling the great pretender and his henchmen to start another war. Hope you enjoy your half of the political Dynasty and aren’t too badly beaten by Jeb Bush in 2012.

  • No declaration of wat is necessary. The Rethug Congressin 2002 authorized the President to attack anyone and anywhere he pleases, and they haven’t rescinded that authority. This Congress won’t do that despite being run by the Dim-Dems.

    The twin lunatics, Junior and Dart Vader, want to commit the US to the Middle East for the foreseeable future, and want to fix it so a Dim-Dem president, or the next Rethug, can’t extricate us. They don’t care if every Rethug is voted out of the Congress. War is war, and can’t be stopped easily by a mere change in political leadership. It will take the next administration six months to a year to get its act together. A draft will be necessary, and the Dim-Demsin Congress will enable it all just as they are now. The oil companies, the Saudis, the Carlyle Group, and Halliburton, not to mention Israel will be very fat and happy. There isn’t a lot of mystery here.

    Murder, mayhem, death, destruction, none of it matters just as long as the rich get richer. And Israel gets its way.

  • “Cheney’s option is now for a fast in and out — for surgical strikes,”

    I wonder how many thousand innocent Iraqis ended up in the morgue due to the surgical strikes that country had witnessed over the past four years.

    I wonder how the neocons will justify their new project, considering Iran has never invaded any of it’s neighbors, has never been found to have any WMD, charges of terrorism support by the Iranians are based on flimsy if not whimsical evidence, it thumbs it’s nose at UN resolutions just like many other countries-and the necons are also guilty of cherry picking things they like about the UN, that is if they like anything at all.

    Pakistan has nukes and Osama lives there in apparent comfort but no one is bothered so far it’s rulers are openly docile and they don’t appear to be in the process of shifting regional power in their favor. Saudi Arabia exports terrorists, does not tolerate Jews or any other religion except radical Islam, abuses human rights, officially threats women like dirt, hounds gays but no one is batting an eyelid or drawing plans for surgical strikes.

    It’s quite obvious the main reason for indicting Iran is due to the non conformist nature of it’s rulers and the verbose nature of it’s President.

  • A lot of this saber-rattling is predicated on the assumption that, as in Iraq, UK is “in the bag” vis support. But it’s a different UK now, with Brown at its helm — he’s far less of a Bush’s poodle than B-liar had been. Germany and France, while having steered right since the autumn of ’02, aren’t any more likely to be lured into this fiasco than they had been before. Some of the rest of the “coalition of the willing” has evaporated (Spain, Italy), due to internal changes in their governments and Australia may follow, depending on the results of their elections. Canada is also having second thoughts on the subject. The rest are really small potatoes, some having contributed as few as 3 soldiers.

    So US might be setting itself up as a truly unilateral invader. And I wonder how well that would be received in the rest of the world. Europe (and US) kept mum when Hitler annexed Austria. Ditto when he “repossessed” Sudetenland. But, when Hitler started bombing Poland, Europe at least had had enough (well, most of it; Italy and Romania were his quiescent allies) and decided that Germany was its *common enemy*. It didn’t end well for Germany; even a big dog is likely to have trouble defending itself against many little ones…

    Me, all I want for Christmas (and Thanksgiving, but, preferably, delivered by Halloween) is is for my two front maniacs (the Grand Ventriloquist and his Dummy) to drop dead before they can unleash the wind that the rest of us will have to reap.

  • Actually WeeFree,
    In spite of their present governments shortcomings, Iran is the only country in the Middle East whose people feel they are a cohesive enough culture/nation to be a spiritual leader of the great population of other Shiites and possibly even Sunnis, throughout the area. The Sunni dominated countries, (and America), see Iran as a grave threat to their power. It has very little too do with the present Iranian leadership or their dogmas. When Arabians and others were still humping camels, Iranians already had 1600 years of continous culture. Remember, it was the Persians who fought the Greeks prior to the Roman Empire. I remember friends in Iran telling me of Dirush, or Darius, with the same feeling we in America speak of George Washington.
    DC

    • Comments are closed.